Friday, December 16, 2016

Exposure to false advertising doesn't create Article III standing

Pro se plaintiff TruthInAdvertisingEnforcers.com is a
website solely owned by Gerald Collette, who received the advertisements at
issue at his residence. Defendants include five internet service providers and
two sales agents for those service providers.
Truth alleged that defendants’ ads claimed that high-speed internet services
were available at lower prices than were actually available to consumers in
Collette’s county. E.g., “HIGH SPEED
INTERNET Starting at $19.99 month No Matter Where You Live! No TV Service
Required!”

The court found that Truth lacked Article III standing
because there was no injury in fact.
Truth didn’t allege that it bought more expensive services because of
defendants’ bait-and-switch. The injury
was merely that the advertised prices weren’t available. Bare violations of false advertising laws don’t
create Article III standing. That’s not
a concrete injury, just a personal disappointment. (Wonder whether the Florida AG agrees?) Thus, the court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction and remanded to state court.

Creative Commons/disclaimer

Text on this blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License. Pictures and works quoted may be subject to other parties' copyrights.
I speak for myself. On this blog, I do not and cannot speak for Georgetown Law, the Organization for Transformative Works and/or AO3.